Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Proposal: How to deal with Spaceman"
- Previous message: Andr? Michaud: "Re: Now I ask you:"
- In reply to: ad: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:59:14 GMT
"ad" <infradig-nospambalam@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:H3_Ic.3$s26.186@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
> > science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of
time.
> > To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks.
It
> > is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this
is
> > true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
> > they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
> > reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
> > instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical
stuff.
> > But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly
how
> > each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since
there
> > is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy
it
> > does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no
experimental
> > consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
> > Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
> > like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
> > mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never
strictly
> > logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
> > mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does
not
> > really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence
with
> > expriment is all that coutns.
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> If you really believe that then it's very sad. Is physics still really
> stuck in the dark ages like that? Don't they teach how to think in
> physics courses?
I am self taught in physics but am formally trained in mathematics to
masters level. That it is how you are taught in applied mathematics I can
vouch for. And no one who has any acquaintance with mathematics can doubt
it requires thought, that its practitioners are trained in how to think, and
that it has made considerable progress well beyond the dark ages - with that
progress underpinning much of the advancement mankind as whole has made.
Actually no one who has any acquaintance with physics can doubt the same
applies to it - but since I have no formal qualifications I will not push
the point. I think it is sad that people who hold the view I espoused above
make progress and those that bemoan it as sad seldom seem to. For example
what progress has philosophy made other than to understand the issues
better? - philosophers never seem to actually agree on anything - science at
least agrees on the results of experiment and in broad terms on the
scientific method. Or do you think that Bertrand Russell, who wrote the
quote I gave and held similar views (not the same but similar) was unable to
think and stuck in the dark ages? Pull the other one - it plays jingle
bells.
Bill
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Proposal: How to deal with Spaceman"
- Previous message: Andr? Michaud: "Re: Now I ask you:"
- In reply to: ad: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
